DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 05/04/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Applicant’s amendments and their corresponding arguments, with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over in view of the prior art used in the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3- The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4- Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupuis et al. (Patent No. 10520360) in view of Sambi et al. (PGPUB No. 20230057548)
As to amended claims 1, 15, 18, Dupuis teaches a system, and its method of use, for monitoring properties of high power laser beam (24) or a laser beam entering a laser processing head (Abstract, Figs. 1-3), comprising: an entry port (Fig. 3; window 26) for the laser beam; a first deflection mirror (36) arranged behind the entry port along a laser beam path of the incident laser beam for reflecting the laser beam; (Claim 18) the deflection mirror which is arranged before the first lens or lens group toward the first lens or lens group (Fig. 3); a first lens or lens group (lens 72 for ex.) arranged behind the first deflection mirror along the reflected beam path; a dichromatic mirror (any of 74, 76, 70 or 102) arranged along the reflected beam path for partly coupling the laser beam out; a second lens (any of 90, 100, 110 or 138) arranged behind the dichromatic mirror along the partly outcoupled laser beam path; a beam shaping element arranged in the beam path between the first deflection mirror and the dichromatic mirror, wherein the beam shaping element is a physically separate and distinct component from the first deflection mirror, first lens or lens group, dichromatic mirror, and the second lens (any of the elements 28, 40, 46, 60, 70); and a sensor arranged behind the second lens along the partly outcoupled laser beam path, which the partly outcoupled part of the laser beam hits (any of sensors 88, 104, 108, 112, 134), wherein the dichromatic mirror is configured to transmit a wavelength and reflect a diagnostic wavelength toward the sensor (here the dichroic mirror 74, 76, 78 can be considered, as they allow the high power beam to reach sample 96, and reflect light with different spectral wavelengths towards their respective sensor).
Dupuis does not teach expressly wherein the dichromatic mirror is configured to transmit the wavelength as a machining wavelength.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a system, and its method of use, for monitoring properties of high power laser beam or a laser beam entering a laser processing head (Abstract, Figs. 1-3), wherein CO2 lasers are used in laser cutting applications (Figs. 1-3 and ¶ 4-5), a dichroic mirror (8) transmits a machining wavelength beam (L2) towards mechanical piece (100). Also, since the wavelengths are not claimed to be distinct and different, the lights transmitted and reflected towards the sensor are used for cutting, ¶ 28, 33-35 for ex., and for wavefront analysis, ¶ 46 for ex., respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus/method of Dupuis according to Sambi’s suggestions so that the dichromatic mirror is configured to transmit the wavelength as a machining wavelength, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the emission laser powers for cutting applications.
Moreover, Dupuis teaches:
(Claim 2) wherein the laser beam entry port is a laser light cable connected to a laser beam source (Col/ll. 5/36-39).
(Claim 3-4) wherein the first lens or lens group focuses the laser beam; wherein the second lens or lens group focuses the partly outcoupled portion of the laser beam onto the sensor (Fig. 3).
(claims 5, 16-17) wherein the first and/or second lens or lens group is a tunable lens or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens selected from liquid lenses, liquid crystalline lenses, or elastomeric lenses, wherein the optical properties of a tunable lens are changeable by external excitation (one PHOSITA would have considered using the moving means 130, part of a lens group comprising also the lenses, in Fig. 3, or replace it with a deformable lens species from the limited genus of tunable lenses - See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered)-, with possible position/focusing control, claim 11, in the system of Fig. 3 for obvious advantages of adjusting capabilities in focusing lights on the sample or on the sensor to optimize the cutting or the characterization of the laser beams).
(Claims 11-12) wherein a protective glass window (26) is disposed adjacent to an output tip of an optical fiber, and a third lens or lens group is disposed downstream of the protective glass window along the laser beam path (any of the lenses cited above are downstream of window 26); (Claim 12) the system of claim 11, wherein the third lens is a tunable lens or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens (See rejection of claims 5, 16-17).
As to claims 6-7, the combination of Dupuis and Sambi teaches the system of claim 1.
Dupuis does not teach expressly wherein the first lens or lens group is connected to a first displacement element and the second lens or lens group is connected to a second displacement element, each displacement element comprising a linear actuator configured to displace the respective lens or lens group along a beam axis of the laser beam.
However, Sambi teaches wherein the first lens or lens group (5/6) is connected to a first displacement element (7) for displacing the respective lens or lens group on the beam axis, each displacement element comprising a linear actuator configured to displace the respective lens or lens group along a beam axis of the laser beam (¶ 43-44 for ex; moving means 7/71).
The combination still does not teach expressly the second lens or lens group is connected to a second displacement element for displacing the respective lens or lens group on the beam axis; (claim 7) wherein the sensor is connected to a third displacement device for displacement thereof along a beam axis of the laser beam.
However, One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use a similar displacement element to the moving element 7, of Sambi, to be used with the second lens or lens group and/or the sensor to numerically adapting the focusing to the size of the sensor and its resolution power for obvious advantages of wavefront measurement optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus/method of Dupuis according to Sambi’s suggestions so that the first lens or lens group is connected to a first displacement element and the second lens or lens group is connected to a second displacement element, each displacement element comprising a linear actuator configured to displace the respective lens or lens group along a beam axis of the laser beam; wherein the sensor is connected to a third displacement device for displacement thereof along a beam axis of the laser beam, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the optical properties of the laser beams for cutting applications.
As to claims 8-10, 14, 19-20, the combination of Dupuis and Sambi teaches the system and method of claims 1 and 15.
Dupuis does not teach expressly wherein an optical filter is disposed between the dichromatic mirror and the sensor; wherein an aperture is disposed between the dichromatic mirror and the second lens; wherein a hole of the aperture is offset from a beam axis of the laser beam; (claims 19-20) wherein the high- power laser beam or laser beam passes through a filter arranged before the sensor; wherein the high- power laser beam or laser beam passes through an aperture arranged offset from a beam axis of the laser beam and before the second lens or lens group; (claim 14) wherein the first mirror is a tip-tilt mirror or deformable mirror.
However, Sambi does teach wherein an optical filter is disposed between the dichromatic mirror and the sensor; wherein an aperture is disposed between the dichromatic mirror and the second lens (optical element 11 is considered as an aperture/spatial filter, and a spectral filter -since all optical elements/windows do present a transmission/blocking spectra); (claim 10) wherein a hole of the aperture is offset from a beam axis of the laser beam (one can consider the optical axis to be along the P direction and the transmission direction of window 11 is clearly off-set from the beam axis of the laser beam along P); (claim 14) wherein the first mirror is a tip-tilt mirror or deformable mirror (adaptive piezoelectric-based element 10/16 is considered as the beam shaping element; ¶ 69 for ex.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus/method of Dupuis according to Sambi’s suggestions so that an optical filter is disposed between the dichromatic mirror and the sensor; wherein an aperture is disposed between the dichromatic mirror and the second lens; wherein a hole of the aperture is offset from a beam axis of the laser beam; wherein the first mirror is a tip-tilt mirror or deformable mirror, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the optical properties of the laser beams for cutting applications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure:
/https://novantaphotonics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/NOVT_Whitepaper_Alternative_CO2_Laser_Wavelengths.pdf and https://www.keyence.com/products/marker/laser-marker/types/co2-laser-marking.jsp (appears relevant to claims 1, 15)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights